Wasserstrom - On the Morality of War

War is a difficult moral issue and this seemed to be a lengthy argument against all morality in war. I had a hard time distinguishing if Wasserstrom had anything to say in support of war at all. It seems like he took a wholly negative approach in that every venue of war is entirely immoral. I found that his argument formed around how all aspects of war hold no morality, and thus, wars should never be fought.

What I got confused about was his argument about self-defense. He seems to see some justification in defending one's nation as an individual, but notes that one needs only to defend oneself to the extent of merely defending. As in not going any further. My question is how does one know when they have successfully defended oneself? Is it a defeat of an invading army all the way to your shores? Is that justifiable? What happens if they are beaten to the edge of the map only to invade once more and kill more innocent civilians? Is that justifiable? I also agree that it is the duty of the President to hold American lives at a higher lives than others, however, it is not moral. It simply must be done when you hold that position.

As for his argument on innocent civilians, I find it a bit one-sided. Innocent civilians will be killed in any war. However, more innocent civilians may be killed if a nation does not go to war. It is often the killing of innocent civilians that prompts war. Regardless, is war immoral? Yes. However, is it immoral to allow your own people to be killed or to go to war and stop those whom are doing the killed from continuing. Sometimes there is little option in war.